Analysis of differences between contact and non-contact estimation of blood pressure

  • Blood pressure (BP) is a key indicator for cardiac diseases. Although many current works focus on estimating BP using photoplethysmography (PPG), the number of works using imaging PPG, i.e. PPG derived from videos, and works to compare between different PPG settings is limited. This study compares BP estimation methods using regression ensembles across contact and non-contact PPG settings by means of absolute error (MAE), Pearson correlation coefficient and feature importance. Our results show similar BP estimation quality for both contact and non-contact variants. While MAEs are, similar to comparable works, high (≈ 13mmHg and 8mmHg for systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP)), particularly for DBP and pulse pressure our analyses yield promising correlation coefficients (> 0.7). We observed notable differences in feature importance underlining the relevance of acquisition setup and processing strategies. This work highlights the potential of iPPG for BP estimation, although furtherBlood pressure (BP) is a key indicator for cardiac diseases. Although many current works focus on estimating BP using photoplethysmography (PPG), the number of works using imaging PPG, i.e. PPG derived from videos, and works to compare between different PPG settings is limited. This study compares BP estimation methods using regression ensembles across contact and non-contact PPG settings by means of absolute error (MAE), Pearson correlation coefficient and feature importance. Our results show similar BP estimation quality for both contact and non-contact variants. While MAEs are, similar to comparable works, high (≈ 13mmHg and 8mmHg for systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP)), particularly for DBP and pulse pressure our analyses yield promising correlation coefficients (> 0.7). We observed notable differences in feature importance underlining the relevance of acquisition setup and processing strategies. This work highlights the potential of iPPG for BP estimation, although further research is needed to fully understand the advantages and limitations of both contact and non-contact methods.show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

Statistics

Number of document requests

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Fabienne SahlGND, Sebastian ZaunsederGND
URN:urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-opus4-1262724
Frontdoor URLhttps://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/126272
ISSN:2364-5504OPAC
Parent Title (English):Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering
Publisher:Walter de Gruyter
Place of publication:Berlin
Type:Article
Language:English
Year of first Publication:2025
Publishing Institution:Universität Augsburg
Release Date:2025/11/12
Volume:11
Issue:1
First Page:338
Last Page:341
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/cdbme-2025-0186
Institutes:Fakultät für Angewandte Informatik
Fakultät für Angewandte Informatik / Institut für Informatik
Fakultät für Angewandte Informatik / Institut für Informatik / Professur für Diagnostische Sensorik
Dewey Decimal Classification:0 Informatik, Informationswissenschaft, allgemeine Werke / 00 Informatik, Wissen, Systeme / 004 Datenverarbeitung; Informatik
Licence (German):CC-BY 4.0: Creative Commons: Namensnennung